"You mean the neighbors or actual trash? What a strange thing to say..."

The woman is a bit of a snob. But this is the sort of person that will take an active interest in an old dump like that and you'll have to cater to them if you want anything to happen.

This case highlights a bigger issue that occurs in any of those older working class neighborhoods..that issue is the fact that property owners in those areas see a home as an investment -one that takes a huge chunk out of the family's finances.

When it come time to sell (or flip) they all think that old shack is gonna make 'em rich.

That is what you are up against in these zoning and preservation causes.

This case highlights a bigger issue that occurs in any of those older working class neighborhoods..that issue is the fact that property owners in those areas see a home as an investment -one that takes a huge chunk out of the family's finances.---Not true.

This communities have owner occupied housing that regard property as a bit more than bricks and mortar.

The problem is the surrounding area is infected with absentee landlords and illegal conversions making the community a hive of transient residents.

Nothing exists at this time to encourage community building by encouraging people with a long term investment in the community.

They are, as a rule, antitweeding, demand quality of life issues, against unsupported development (pick up my damn trash and don't bring another 50 people next door if you can't take care of the people here already)

Anonymous#9 said:"Remember...."Don't tread on me"The owner has the right to sell it and it not worth saving. Not every old building is worth saving.Get over it."

Yes Mr/Ms troll "Don't tread on me" is precisely the message we want to send to Bloomberg and his developer cronies. Wanton destruction of our history and the character of the neighborhood is the sort of twisted thing that would delight philistines such as Mr. Bloomberg and yourself.

Increasing population density strains the existing infrastructure and ruins the overall quality of life for all. This overdevelopment rampage is a festering cancer growing on this borough that must be stopped.

This building is not unsound and is mostly uncanged. So what would be the reason for it's demolition other than to satisfy the greed of a developer who doesn't have to live with the consequences of his oversized crap constructs.

This is a pickle of an issue. You cannot change the rules willy nilly unless you are the mayor.

The owner of this property has a right to do as they please with it as long as the zoning resolution is followed along with other applicable laws and rules. If there are people who want to preserve it let them match the price someone else is willing to pay or let the city decide to buy it for a fair market value and place a lien type arrangement on it to prevent it from being knocked down or change in a significant way.

I agree with those who want to preserve our past but one family should not be saddled with that cost. Otherwise what you really have here is a confiscation of the property by the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous said...The problem is the surrounding area is infected with absentee landlords and illegal conversions making the community a hive of transient residents."

You are missing the forest for the trees here.

Teardowns, absentee landlording, rent every nook and cranny are app symptoms of the underlying issue: people who go deep into debt longterm and, at the end, look for a big payout.

They leave the area and don't care, it's just TFB for who remains.

For those who follow, that high price paid for old housing which often has little desirability for younger "whites" means either it become a hive of multiple (usually immigrant) families or is redeveloped.

Places like Bayside are more insular (so far) and tend to have people who are better educated with better housing and care about "what comes after me". Change will happen there also, but it will never become a Woodside or Corona.

look, woodside, the best and most interesting way a neighborhood can begin to improve itself is to start saving it's history. this house at 39-73 64 st is not "significantly altered"! quite the opposite. it looks the just about the same as it did in a civil war era photo on page 42 of catherine gregory's woodside book. that's how it was recognized. and it is beautiful and well cared for. of course, the owner has a right to sell; this is not what this is about. please take a lesson from greenwich village. up until the 1950's, the neighborhood west of greenwich street(not avenue) was designated a slum. but it has had a wonderful re-birth because the residents began to fight to save their historic buildings. it took one housewife(i believe her name was jane siegal) to stop robert moses from plowing through the village. woodside has only one landmark, the moore-jackson graveyard on 53 st. we deserve others. not only this wonderful house (which is in sound shape considering it's antiquity) but st. paul's church, built in 1873, too. it needs help. remember, by destroying your history you are destroying yourself. do something good for woodside and fight for our history!

Teardowns, absentee landlording, rent every nook and cranny are app symptoms of the underlying issue: people who go deep into debt longterm and, at the end, look for a big payout.--

When we talk to people that live in old big homes, like those in Astoria Village (or the Steinway mansion for that matter) we find that their families bought the house decades ago for a song.

$20,000....$40,000...whatever.

They can have a handsome reward for selling the property at a markup undreamed by %95 of the country where real estate is flat or falling - from levels that are a fraction of NY's.

In most parts of the country, such property owners as a matter of pride will say "I can get a little more for it but I am proud of my community and love that house and hope it makes future families as happy and proud as we were. So I sold it insuring it will stand."

The problem is in NYC the real estate - not the public - dictates the pulse of community direction.

They are abetted by 3 factors:

1. the politicians (Jimmy if you love landmarking, why don't you conduct seminars in Sunnyside Gardens which was unnecessarily divided by the landmark process because your colleagues were less than helpful)

2. the media (isn't it nice to know that news is dictated by ad revenues?)

3. the preservation community (those that know aren't telling cause when the dinner bell rings and we don't hear it they get our portion - listen to the dean of NYC Historians, Kenneth Jackson act as an apologist for development. Please note Kenneth: just because they used to wantonly tear stuff down in the past doesn't mean we have to act stupid in the future.)

Spotted a piece of Queens Crap in your community?

Please note

Italicized passages and many of the photos come from other websites. The links to these websites are provided within the posts.

Why your neighborhood is full of Queens Crap

"The difference between dishonest and honest graft: for dishonest graft one worked solely for one's own interests, while for honest graft one pursued the interests of one's party, one's state, and one's personal interests all together." - George Washington Plunkitt

Sites that kick ass:

The above organizations are recognized by Queens Crap as being beneficial to the city as a whole, by fighting to preserve the history and character of our neighborhoods. They are not connected to this website and the opinions presented here do not necessarily represent the positions of these organizations.

The comments left by posters to this site do not necessarily represent the views of the blogger or webmaster.